Re Andrew's request for "a clear statement setting out the reasons for the change".

The difference between STV and a majoritarian system is that if you have a community where factions have emerged then STV ensures that all significant factions can see someone elected who they approve of. By contrast a majoritarian system is by its nature winner takes all and you can have a result where everyone associated with
a particular significant viewpoint is not elected. If you are confident that you will be in the majority then it may seem logical to support a majoritarian system. If you aren't sure if you'd be in the majority then it makes sense to support a system such as STV. If you are somewhat irritated by the bickering and want a representative board with the most sensible people regardless of their stance on certain controversies then you desperately need a system such as STV. If in a divided organisation a narrow majority gets a clean sweep in the elections for the committee it is very difficult if not impossible for the resulting committee to reunite the organisation and defuse tensions.


WSC 



On 29 September 2012 21:55, Andrew Turvey <andrewrturvey@googlemail.com> wrote:
On a different note...

Regarding the switch from approval voting to STV (or whatever) what I think is missing the most is a clear statement setting out the reasons for the change (i.e. what's broken and how would this change fix it).

I've also suggested a tweak to the EGM motion on the page (hope this is ok to do there)

Lastly, we could do with pencilling in a date for the EGM - how about coinciding with the board meeting 9-10 February 2013 - and aim to do it by electronic voting as much as possible.

Regards,

Andrew

On Mon, Sep 17, 2012 at 11:26 PM, James Farrar <james.farrar@gmail.com> wrote:
OK, here's a very quick first draft of the motion and election rules for STV.